Subscribe To

Sunday, 9 October 2016

Podesta leaks - Russia to blame, says Hillary

Clinton Campaign Chairman John Podesta asserts that the emails released by the prominent whistleblower are riddled with fakes and forgeries, but WikiLeaks fires back saying that if John Podesta released his emails the contents would be identical.

In
a bid to downplay the damage wrought by WikiLeaks release
of emails from Clinton’s closest confidante and campaign
chairman John Podesta, Hillary’s campaign went into hyper
drive attempting to conflate the release with Guccifer 2.0
and other obviously fake Twitter “leaks” in order to sow
confusion to prevent journalists from covering the October
Surprise.

In a statement
by John Podesta on Twitter, the political operative said,
"I’m not happy about being hacked by the Russians
in their quest to throw the election to Donald Trump,
[I] don’t have time to figure out which docs are real and
which are faked."

WikiLeaks quickly responded calling on John
Podesta to "submit to WikiLeaks another copy of all
of your emails. We’ll compare the two identical archives
for you" before closing the Tweet with the link
to the whistleblower’s submission website.

Retired US
intelligence official and MSNBC commentator Malcolm Nance, not
officially a Hillary Clinton surrogate, joined the propaganda attempt
to muddy the waters surrounding the veracity of the leak
writing, "Official Warning: #PodestaEmails are already proving
to be riddled with obvious forgeries and #blackpropaganda
not even professionally done."

The analyst cited and attempted
to conflate a post by an unprofessional pro-Trump website
of an alleged "leak" of Hillary’s Goldman Sachs
transcript – published several days before WikiLeaks and
with no connection to the whistleblower organization at all
– that claimed fraudulently that Hillary had called Bernie
supporters a "bucket of losers."

The problem the media
now faces is that in accusing WikiLeaks of forging
documents – with no evidence suggesting a difference
in protocol, here — they are calling into question
the veracity of their own reporting done in conjunction
with the whistleblower organization with newspapers such
as the New York Times and Washington Post having teamed up with
WikiLeaks in the past.

Clinton campaign spokesman Glen Caplin
went further releasing a statement saying, "earlier today the US
government removed any reasonable doubt that the Kremlin has
weaponized WikiLeaks to meddle in our election and benefit
Donald Trump’s candidacy. We are not going to confirm the
authenticity of stolen documents released by Julian Assange
who has made no secret of his desire to damage Hillary
Clinton. Guccifer 2.0 has already proven the warnings of top
national security officials that documents can be faked as part
of a sophisticated Russian misinformation campaign."

Former national security
officials including former Homeland Security Secretary Michael
Chertoff and White House counterterrorism advisor Richard Clarke
joined the anti-journalism chorus telling news outlets that if they
report on the contents of the leak "they are playing
into Russia’s hands" and suggesting that the latest
round of leaks are fraudulent without providing any
evidence.

Notably, the Department of Homeland Security and the
Office of the Director of National Intelligence released
their formal accusation that Russia is behind the WikiLeaks
document dumps less than 20 minutes before the leak leaving
some to wonder whether non-political branches of the US
government are illegal intervening in the election.

Hillary
Clinton says “Kremlin has weaponized WikiLeaks” as she pushes war
agenda

Out
of thin air Hillary created a "Russian hacker" narrative,
much like Bush created the WMD narrative

Hillary
Clinton is sure trying her best to get a hot war with Russia
underway. We can only wonder how much she is getting compensated for
her actions.

A
few weeks back, Hillary decided to divert attention away from leaked
emails, that clearly showed what a corrupt and compromised individual
she is, and instead shifted the blame onto “Russian hackers.” The
main stream media, always ready to back up HRC, ran with the Russian
hacker narrative even though zero evidence was provided, and
completely ignored the content of her leaked emails.

Then
Hillary gave this war hawk speech, where she ups the ante, to state
that any hack against the US should be considered an act of war…

Now
we have more email leaks from HRC’s lucrative Wall Street speech
circuit, and more Clinton Campaign Russian hacker пallegations.

This
time however, with tensions running high in Syria, and open war
between the US and Russia moving ever closer, Clinton’s accusation
carry much more weight, and more dyer consequences for the entire
planet.

And
so we now have Clinton spokesman Glen Caplin going on record to
say that the Clinton campaign will not be confirming
the authenticity of the new Wikileaks email leak made public
this Friday…But (and this is a big BUT) administration
officials have “removed any
reasonable doubt that the Kremlin has weaponized WikiLeaks to meddle
in our election and benefit Donald Trump’s candidacy.”

The
Clinton Campaign comments were followed by U.S. officials
warning that Russia
could be “doctoring”
hacked emails, including those stolen this summer from the Democratic
National Committee.

Do
you see where this is going. Out
of thin air Hillary created a “Russian hacker” narrative, much
like Bush created the WMD narrative.

Over
the course of a few weeks, the Clinton Campaign has
successfully moved the needle from ‘Russia hacking the DNC
servers’, to ‘war with hackers’, to US officials
“confident that the Russian Government directed the recent
compromises of e-mails.”

No
evidence, no proof, no solid facts. Just like Iraq WMD. And best of
all, because the Clinton Campaign has conveniently tied Donald Trump
to Vladimir Putin (for which, once again no evidence exists), the US
Official statement should play nicely with a Clinton election
victory.

CHAIRMAN
OF U.S. SENATE CYBER SECURITY SUBCOMMITTEE TO INTRODUCE BILL IMPOSING
SANCTIONS ON RUSSIA AFTER U.S. POLITICAL HACKING ACCUSATIONS

After
months of speculation whether the US would officially accuse Russia
of being responsible for various intrusions and hacks, primarily
involving the Democratic party, moments ago we finally got the
long-anticipated confirmation when the US named Russia as the actor
behind the hacking attempts on political organizations and, more
importantly, state election systems and
accused Putin of carrying out a wide-ranging campaign to interfere
with the 2016 elections, including by hacking the computers of the
Democratic National Committee and other political officials.

In
a statement, the US “intelligence community” said that it is
“confident” that the Russian government “directed the recent
compromises of emails from US persons and institutions, including
from US political organizations”, the Department of Homeland
Security and Director of National Intelligence on Election Security
said in a joint statement.

The
US added that “these
thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election
process”.

“We
believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that
only Russia’s senior-most officials could have authorized these
activities,” a
U.S. government statement said on Friday about hacking of political
groups. Alternatively, the activities could have been authorized by
some “senior-most” US official, with the intention of creating
the first false flag cyberwar.

The
statement by the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of
the Director of National Intelligence did not blame the Russian
government for hacking attempts against state election systems, but
said “scanning and probing” of those systems originated in most
cases from servers operated by a Russian company.

“These
thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the U.S.
election process,” the statement said. “However, we are not now
in a position to attribute this activity to the Russian Government,”
the statement said.

The
accusation, made by the Office of the Director of National
Intelligence and the Department of Homeland Security, came as
pressure was growing from within the administration and some
lawmakers to hold Moscow accountable for a set of actions apparently
aimed at sowing discord around the election. Sure enough, the formal
attribution to Russia, something that has long been discussed in
information security circles, represents a step-up in rhetoric by the
Obama administration.

The
administration also blamed Moscow for the hack of the Democratic
Congressional Campaign Committee and the subsequent leak of private
email addresses and cell phone numbers of Democratic lawmakers. A
series of other leaks of hacked material followed, all of which are
suspected of being conducted by Russia-sponsored hackers.

Russia
has denied any connection to the hacks. As the official statement by
the DHS and ODNI notes, the actual party doing the accusation of
Russia is the US intelligence community, which as recently as a month
ago was breached itself when
a domestic “Snowden 2.0”, Harold T. Martin, was arrested recently
after obtaining and attempting to sell an unknown number of internal
NSA programs.

While
we are confident that Putin is laughing at this statement and/or
threat, a question emerges:since
the US has said it would treat cyberattacks by “foreign state
powers” as the equivalent of an act of war, will the US now
escalate and use this “naming of Russia” as a global master
hacker (we assume the recent NSA hack will not be blamed on the
Kremlin too, now that an American was arrested), as a pretext to
accelerate diplomatic and/or military actions against Russia.

With
the media exclusively attuned to every new, or 11-year-old as the
case may be, twist in the Trump "sex tape" saga, it
appeared that everyone forgot that a little over 24 hours ago,
Wikileaks exposed the real reason why Hillary was keeping her Wall
Street speech transcripts - which we now know had always been within
easy reach for her campaign - secret. In her own words: "if
everybody's watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and
the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the
least. So, you need both a public and a private position." In
other words, you have to lie to the general public while promising
those who just paid you $250,000 for an hour of your speaking time
something entirely different, which is precisely what those accusing
Hillary of hiding her WS transcripts had done; and as yesterday's
hacked documents revealed, they were right.....